The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-02-21
Concerning Fees.

Section Al, Chapter 81, Revised Statutes,
provides that in case Of seizure of liquors
they shall be libelled and the Judge
shall fix time for hearing such libel and
shall give notice of the same by causing a
true and attested copy of said libel to be
posted in two public and conspicuous places
in the town or place where such liquors were
seized" Section 63 ofthe same chapter pro-
yides that the fee for posting these libels
shall be one dollar. The law does not des-
ignate any particular person to do this
work. The judge may appoint anybody
he sees fit to-" Last year it was done here
by the recorder. But it could have been
done by somebody else just as well. 1t is no
part Of the recorders official duties The
time occupied in posting the great majority
of these libels cannot exceed five minutes,
and the work which consists in driving
few lacks or covering the back of the libel
with paste and then pressing it against
wall cannot be regarded as very arduous.
Last year 2043 Of these libels were posted by
order of the Municipal Court of Portland
and the amount the tax payers paid for this
work was $2o43. The aggregate time spent
In the work was about fourteen days of ten
hours each so that the rate of wages fixed by
the statutes OF the State for libel posting is
$40 day. The County Commissioners in
hearing before the judiciary committee of
the Legislature recently expressed the opin-
ion that this was too high pay, and asked
that it be cut down. The Judiciary
committee however, refuse to cut it
down, thus taking the ground that
one dollar is a reasonable and proper com
r~nsaUiVn Ivr posing liquor libel. 1t
would be interesting to know how they
arrived at this conclusion. The only argu-
ment addressed to them in support of this
fee was that the recorder of the Municipal
Court was a hard-worked Official and
ought to have it to exc out an made
quate salary. But under the present law
there is no certainty that he win get it,
The judge is under no obligation to appoint
the recorder to post the libels. lie can ap-
point somebody else just as well. So under
the present arrangement it is possible that
the recorder may get no more than $500
while another person appointed to post libels
may draw three times as much. If the judic-
iary committee are perpetuating this ex-
travagant fee in order to pay the recorder
an adequate salary then they ought to amend
the law so as to make it sure that he will
get it. But even on this ground the fee
is not defensible. Twenty-three hundred
dollars, which is about the amount the
recorder drew for his services last year, is
too much. 1t is entirely disproportlonate to
the salaries of other public officers. The
Judge OF the court is paid only salary of
$1,000, and he is required to turn all fees
into the public treasury, The clerk of the
Supreme and Superior Courts for this county
receives only $780, The judge of the Su-
perior Court receives only $500 and the
Supreme judges only $4,000 and are obliged
to pay their travelling expenses out of it.
Either their salaries are much too small or
the revenue of the recorder of the Municipal
Court is too large.